Talk:McKinsey & Company

Issues section
We've been slowly hacking away at the "Issues" section (previously called "Criticisms") by re-writing, trimming and distributing it to be more in line with WP:CRITICISM among other basic policies (NPOV/V/etc.). I think we're in a good spot to finally finish off this section-title by re-distributing the rest of the content. My suggestions are as follows:


 * Add the "Notable works" draft I started at User:CorporateM/McKinsey as a replacement for the Insurance and Enron sections, which are re-written and incorporated into the draft as part of a more balanced section.
 * Move "Environmental considerations" into a sub-section of "Consulting services" and call it something like "Marginal abatement curves" or "Environmental consulting".
 * Merge the content of "Criticism of management advice" to the new "Notable works" section, because they are all related to specific client projects.

I'll still need to polish off the Notable works section at some point, but there are a lot of projects recorded in reliable sources and it will take quite a bit of research to determine which are most notable. The Fortune quote in the draft will provide me with a starting point of the most significant projects up to 1993. CorporateM (Talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't "notable works" in itself POV? "Works" would be more NPOV IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Crisco 1492 The word "notable" refers to the selectivity of only including the most well-known projects, whereas Works sounds like an indiscriminate collection. I always create a section like that for professional services firms (see Waggener Edstrom and Fluor Corporation). However I don't have a strong opinion and it's WP:COIMICRO anyway. I trust your judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PEA is more or less with me on this one. Does the running prose need any edits, or just the section head? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, I rewrote the content as well. Both sections were written with a specific focus on criticisms, not noting that McKinsey was also given partial credit for Enron's rise, that the government did not find enough of a connection with their work to include them in their investigation, or that their advice to insurance companies that led to lawsuits also led to doubling profit margins. It'll take more work to get that section up to GA standards by rounding out the most significant projects, but I took a quick stab at a better starting point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm off to bed now, but I'll do this tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done the first two. How, exactly, do you want the third one merged in? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't vetted it yet. I was going to suggest just adding it to the bottom for now, but I'm taking a closer look
 * The Enron bit can be taken out, as the source is already included in the Enron section and the material is redundant
 * The AT&T bit could probably be removed, as the source only briefly mentions McKinsey and Fortune actually included AT&T in one of the "current era's great successes" consulted by McKinsey. This section should be reserved for a high-level summary of the most historically significant works, not an indiscriminate collection and the material appears to be misrepresentative.
 * GM is included in Fortune's list of McKinsey clients that did poorly. Suggest we do something like "Early 1900s", "Late 1900s" and "Recent work" and move GM to "Late 1900s"
 * I'll have to do more research on the Swissair thing, but I think I have seen that one in other sources. Suggest keeping it in the Works section somewhere.
 * CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll let you finish that draft, and take care of the other two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking this over, I believe this is all cited to Sternbergh (with supporting info from other sources). If other publications disagree, that's a reason to include this as an example of mixed reception. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the best possible source to use, or that it really conflicts that much with stronger sources though. It mentions GM and Enron, but not AT&T. It reads like an op-ed. The author appears to be a "contributor" to several publications and only wrote four articles for BW. + the book itself that he is reviewing is a much better source and I have a physical copy. I would go with Fortune's list to bring us up to the 90s (researching each one individually) and then use the book he is referring to in order to gleam the most significant ones since then. CorporateM (Talk) 03:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And the book discusses "failures"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Successes and failures, yes. I'd say that's a substantial portion of the entire book, but it's been a while since I originally read it. You can see a similar book review with a promotional rather than critical bias here, but the book itself is neutral and balanced. I can provide a copy of the book if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 05:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than apply a temporary fix (like removing, reworking, etc.) would it be possible to provide a summary of successes / failures based on the book, or other sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Early history
✅ This section is GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Establishment
✅This section is also GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent history
This section needs a bit of expansion I think if it is to cover all the major aspects:
 * Gupta opened new international offices aggressively in cities including Moscow, Beijing and Bangkok.
 * Done, but expanding on "aggressively" would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The growth led to an internal debate as to whether the firm was or could hold on to its founding principles at a much larger scale.
 * Re: Gupta's expansions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm..... The prior paragraph in the source credits Gupta directly for some of the re-structuring, but the following paragraph on growing pains does not directly attribute the concerns to him. I can scan the page and provide a copy if you prefer. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * McKinsey created practice areas for manufacturing and business technology in the late 1990s.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to the structure developed by prior directors, Gupta created 16 industry groups charged with understanding specific markets. He also instituted a three-term limit for the managing director.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * During the internet boom of the 1990s, McKinsey performed more than 1,000 e-commerce projects from 1998-2000 alone.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The dot-com bust also led to a decline in revenues and losses from equity-based payments as stock interests lost their value. This was followed by a recession in 2001 that forced McKinsey to reduce its prices, cut expenses and reduce hiring.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * By 2002 McKinsey's revenues were 50, 20 and 30 percent from strategy, operations and technology consulting respectively.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest moving this from the Structure section to Recent history: "It started a Social Sector Office (SSO) in 2008. The SSO is divided into three practices: Global Public Health, Economic Development and Opportunity Creation (EDHOC) and Philanthropy."
 * Done... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Galleon insider trading scandal should probably go here - currently there is a gap in Current history from 2004 to present and this is the most significant event from a media coverage perspective that happened during that time period.
 * Done... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's possible I have a skewed point of view, but I think the article contains an excess focus on controversial events, as evidenced by the extensive section on the Galleon scandal (which has its own article), on its environmental work, and regarding the healthcare research they did (at the bottom of the Publishing section). Most of this content was written by me originally, but I often cover controversies in-depth at first and trim down over-time. I thought I would check-in with another editor to see if they agree before taking a look at how we can shorten them if a disinterested editor feels that would be the right way to go. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Culture
This seems to have been cut out accidentally by North8000 when implementing my draft history content and should probably be put back in (the 1937 memo is in a lot of profile stories on McKinsey)


 * " Marvin Bower is credited with creating McKinsey's core values and principles, which he initially established in a 1937 memo. The memo said McKinsey consultants should put the interests of clients before McKinsey's revenues, not discuss client affairs, tell the truth even if it means challenging the client's opinion and only perform work that is both necessary and that McKinsey can do well.

GAN-ready draft
Based on a discussion with user:FreeRangeFrog regarding hammering out the rest of the GAN-preparation edits, I prepared an annotated draft of all my remaining suggested edits at User:CorporateM/McKinsey. FreeRangeFrog has reviewed the edits and found them to be appropriate, but wisely asked that I share the draft here for any interested editors to comment. In particular, user:My2011 I know has an interest in compensation and the galleon scandal, which I have proposed modifications and trims to in the draft. I know he/she said they were busy IRL, but if they do have time to take a look, it would be great to get your input first! Naturally anyone else is also welcome to comment. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Repetitious
Do we need to be told three times that they have an up or out policy, four times that they employ recent graduates? 31.52.254.118 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Images and misc
I just got copyright permissions for a couple images (see below):

CorporateM (Talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding the image of James McKinsey (the org's founder) to Early History and to the page on James McKinsey
 * Suggest adding the Marvin Bower image to Organization/Corporate culture and replacing the non-free image on Marvin Bower
 * I'm not sure the image "McKinsey Office in Bucharest, Romania" is really pertinent, but I am somewhat indifferent. HQ images are usually considered appropriate and have a place in the infobox, but McKinsey does not have an official headquarters and this appears to be of a random location.
 * The Lead says "headquartered in New York City in the United States" though the company actually has no official HQ location. Its "CEO" operates out of London and it was founded in New York City.


 * Suggestion for when you next upload images; try and make the names unique. I've had to delete the non-free Bower image to let the other one through (I would have had to delete it anyways, but by doing that you wouldn't have had to use a non-free image on the talk page).
 * Images added, lead trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cell towers

 * In the 1980s, AT&T reduced investments in cell towers due to McKinsey's prediction that there would only be 900,000 cell phone subscribers by 2000. According to The Firm this was "laughably off the mark" from the 109 million cellular subscribers by 2000.

I would like to know more about this bad prediction. Is it possible that the consultants were deliberately favoring landlines over towers? I think anyone familiar with technology would have seen where this was going, so it's hard to believe this recommendation was made in all seriousness. In any case, I'm surprised this is a good article as the material is poorly structured and the narrative is almost nonexistent. I wonder if this would pass if it went to reassessment. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"American"
The current Lead says "McKinsey & Company is an American multinational...", however McKinsey no longer has an official headquarters, its CEO is actually based in London, and the majority of its revenues are from outside the US. A quick look at their global locations map looks like they may have more locations in Europe than in the US.

Can we trim this word "American". Not sure where it's coming from. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Per who we are "We have no headquarters in the traditional sense." While I am sure there is some legal domicile somewhere, that is a technicality. Most multinationals have a main headquarters; this company appears not to have one.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone has, once again, added New York City as the company's headquarters and labeled the organization as "American" in the Lead rather than "multinational". The provided sources to justify claiming its headquarters are in New York City are things like Hoovers (not reliable) and a link to McKinsey's website. Both of these websites identify New York City as a location, but not specifically as their headquarters. As previously discussed just above this post, McKinsey's own website says they have no headquarters, so it's a bit ironic to cite them as saying the opposite. Do you mind taking a look once more? I think also dealt with this same exact issue on this page a while back. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to look but I glanced through the latest five edits and didn't see it - can you track down the edit?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was done by an IP here. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 21:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Headquarters revisited
The article once-again lists New York City as McKinsey's headquarters in the infobox and as a Category: "Companies based in New York City". You may remember from prior discussions that this edit was recurring, even though McKinsey states on its website that it has no headquarters and the sources used were usually not reliable. This time however, they did find a reliable source (Forbes) that does list NYC as their headquarters in contradiction to the company's own claims. I've asked McKinsey to request a correction from Forbes, but often such requests are a lost cause with press that isn't current. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

, I notice that you added New York as an entry for the headquarters of this organization edit. (You may or may not be aware that CorporateM has a conflict of interest and cannot edit the article directly. I have some history with both the article and the organization, although not enough to create a conflict of interest, so I offered to help talk through this edit.)

While it's a bit of an affectation, McKinsey claims that they do not literally have headquarters. I've looked at that claim before but I just checked to make sure that it is still current. Who we Are We have no headquarters in the traditional sense. Most organizations do have headquarters, so it isn't at all surprising that some publications who try to keep track of organizations might insist on filling the blank even if they don't have solid evidence. If they truly do have a headquarters, it might be our responsibility to include that information in our article, but if they don't have a true headquarters and some publications simply mistakenly pick up a location incorrectly, we shouldn't support that error.

Your edit included two references:
 * 1
 * 2

The first of these references is not about McKinsey&Company as a whole but about one specific region in which New York is located. Not surprisingly, that page has a physical address in New York but I don't see anything on that page the claims that New York is the global headquarters. It simply claims it is the single largest office.

The second reference is an entry in Hoover's, which contains contact information for the organization. Many organizations are required to maintain contact information and it is not unusual that such an address would correspond to the headquarters but it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Thus, the Hoover entry is narrowly a place to write to the company to get information or pass along information but it in no way means that this address is the global headquarters.

I'm also aware that Forbes does have an entry for McKinsey which states that the headquarters are in New York. This would normally be strong evidence and would certainly be acceptable if not contested. However, as noted, the organization claims that it does not have headquarters and it is highly likely that someone working for Forbes simply entered the contact address. It is my understanding (see above) that McKinsey may be in the process of requesting a correction from Forbes. It is my opinion that we do not need to wait for such a correction. When sources disagree, we ought to be able to use common sense. In my opinion, common sense is that if McKinsey explicitly states that they do not have formal headquarters than it is quite plausible that reliable sources may mistakenly pick up their contact address and use it as a headquarters address.

I am fully aware that personal experiences are not controlling when it comes to edits. However, I will share a personal experience because it is relevant and timely. I recently became president of an organization. One of my first duties was to fill out a directory listing asking for all kinds of the usual information. One of the fields requested was the location of our headquarters. I had to scratch my head and double check with other officers of the organization to confirm my understanding that we literally did not have a headquarters. We do have a mailing address, which I supplied and I won't be surprised if somebody, somewhere will claim that our headquarters corresponds to the mailing address. Also coincidentally, an item on our next board meeting is to address an offer by an organization to provide us with a physical headquarters. If we accept, we will have a physical headquarters but the expectation is that we will reject the offer. Again this isn't necessarily controlling, but I offer it as evidence that organizations do exist without physical headquarters.

I think I could justify removing the headquarters information on the argument I've laid out, but I prefer to start with a discussion and persuade you that I've identified the right course of action.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See the differences between edits. "New York City" was already there as the headquarters—I merely supplied the references to (I thought) back up that assertion.  However, I have no personal attachment to or knowledge of that "fact", so if you know better, then go ahead make the change (to "hq_location = none")—just be sure to include a citation or two to that effect. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread the edit - I have to run, will say more when I get home.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the change-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of employees?
What's the actual current number of employees? Forbes lists 11,000 in their company listing. Big Three (management consultancies) notes 17,000, contradicting the main article here with 14,000. An IP-editor just suggested 29,000 based on LinkedIn data (but I have reverted this change without a specific verifiable and reliable source). Maybe the numbers have fluctuated recently (or different numbers are based on different methods of calculation). It would be great, if someone more knowledgeable could clarify these differences and update both articles accordingly. Also, if the numbers often fluctuate, it would probably be helpful to always add a specific month and year to such values - just to reduce the inevitable inaccuracy with variable statistics. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I got some useful clarification on the variance in employee-counts from McKinsey today. According to McKinsey, they have 12,000 consultants and another 2,000 research and information professionals(source), but more than 20,000 total employees(see McKinsey Fact Sheet found here). The employee-count reported in secondary sources often varies depending on what year they are reporting for, and whether they are actually reporting number of consultants, rather than total employees. For example, 11,000 was probably the number of consultants a year or two ago, whereas 17,000 was probably the total number of employees a year or two ago. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I suggest to give it a few days, but if noone objects to the self-sourced number of 20,000, we could probably use it (assuming other consultancy articles also use "total number of employees" and not "number of consultants" as statistical value?). If clarity is needed, we could also explicitly note the differing calculations in a footnote. GermanJoe (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I never would have noticed the need for a correction if you hadn't spotted it. Good catch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Done - added a short footnote as background information as well. As always, feel free to tweak my English :). GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate top level "corruption" section?
It appears the the two incidents listed did not directly involve the firm. So their relevance is "once removed"; probably still worth including, but through the sequence of events at the article, you have a big "corruption" section at the article on the company that covers things (not counting vague allegations) that neither the company nor it's employees did. This makes the article give a distorted impression. The best way to fix it is probably more complex, but as an interim or quickie pseudo-fix, I plan to just move those incident subsections into the history section.  North8000  (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight for alumni statistics in lead - removed
Such detailed statistics to highlight the company's prestige are undue weight for the lead, which should serve only as a brief overview for the topic. Please discuss here, if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the paragraph is undue weight for the lead. It would be appropriate to include a 1-sentence summary in the lead and leave the more detailed information in the Influence section. Is it typical to describe former employees as "alumni"? –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A short 1-sentence mention could work, if anyone has a good neutrally-phrased suggestion. The problem is really not the fact itself, but its overly detailed promotional presentation in undue weight. However, I strongly disagree with any usage of Vault or similar sources in the lead, these "awards" are the result of trivial popularity polls with no evidence of any deeper professional analysis, and the whole site is little more than a thinly-veiled PR platform for the companies. GermanJoe (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just took a quick look, forgive me if I'm missing the background. Agree that for several reasons the whacked material should not have been in the lead. Most of those reasons apply specifically to being in the lead. Probably borderline (and still needing some work) if it was in the body of the article. IMO simple deletion and deletion of the large amount of references is an awfully big and fast change. IMO a good course of action would be to move it to the body and then edit if further. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Parts of it are already covered in "Influence" further down. While the tone could use a bit of additional work, this seems like a fair coverage of the company's status in the branche, especially in combination with other related sections like "Culture". Of course nobody is denying that the company has significant influence in its branche and beyond. GermanJoe (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't notice that in my "quick look". North8000 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Creeping WP:Undue issues
At first glance this appears to inched into undue territory regarding controversies. A quick read seems to indicate that the article is being inched towards stretching too far to include such stuff. In perspective, for a $10 billion 92 year old company, there seems to be too much material on small scale negative areas where the firm wasn't even directly involved. Even mere allegations from individual groups have just been added. I did not revert because I'm not deep in enough on this to know it well. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be getting worse. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * And worse. The recent addition makes it appear that the US imposed sanctions as a part of the corruption investigation while it was actually for sanction violations. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Alumni listcruft
I have removed the recently added section as it contained non-neutral language, low-quality sources, and unsourced listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Without independent expert sources and additional encyclopedic context, such an indiscriminate trivial list is just PR fluff that doesn't add to an encyclopedic overview of the topic. The general observation, that several McKinsey alumni have later been appointed as CEOs or other high-level executives, is already covered in the "Influence" section in sufficient detail. Please discuss here if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The content has now been moved to List of former employees of McKinsey & Company. Atleast it doesn't clutter up the main article then - a slight improvement imo. But the basic point still stands of course: are such alumni lists for companies (especially without independent sources and verifiable substantial correlation) appropriate encyclopedic content or excessive listcruft? Anyway, I have asked at WP:Companies for additional opinions and will leave the current situation as is for now. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"CEO factory"
With a little digging I found the original USA Today article about McKinsey as "CEO factory": the link is. First of all this is not a "study", but a reader editor's article based on primary data and some random odd comparisons to create a spicy interesting article. Secondly the number of "produced" CEOs is far too low to create any meaningful statistical result, let alone a comparison with competitors (quoted from the article: "With numbers, you can make any point you want"). Lastly, the article fails to show any substantial correlation behind this data. In short, the results of this so-called "study" are not of encyclopedic relevance. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg
Did U.S. presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg formerly work for McKinsey & Company? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead should obviously mention some of the controversies
An enormous part of the body is about various scandals and controversies related to McKinsey. Numerous COI accounts have sought to remove this content from the lead. A regular editor then aided the COI accounts in the whitewashing. The content should be restored ASAP. Puffery such as McKinsey advising the "world's leading businesses and nonprofits" should also be removed. We are not here to write an ad for this company. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi How are you? The reasons I removed it, mostly I think because these kinds of things must be enormous and world shaking before they are put in the lede, particularly in such a huge article. The article itself has increased in size by 40k since 2015 and needs to be drastically reduced I think. The days of being a good GA are long gone. For example, why is it discussing at length the number of employees it has in the lede, and using a low-quality Forbes reference to support it. From the lede: 1930s, the company's core values and principles and values were established.. I would sincerely like to have time to do it.    scope_creep Talk  18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I started watching / got involved a bit here when there was a declared COI editor involved who went 200% by the rules and did excellent work. Now they seem to have left. Seems like it's always slipping into being a hit piece (with overemphasis on local scandals considering the size and scope of the company and length of its history) or a PR piece. If there are other editors here who just want the article to be good then there's hope and I'll stick around.North8000 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A phrase like the world’s leading businesses is empty corporate PR-speak, and the company's core values and principles and values were established is somehow even worse. ("You said values twice!" "That's because it takes twice as many values as principles.") The writing in the lede is disjointed and not even copy-edited. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yip, that's what I was alluding to, but it's not the only type of article that I seen of this condition. There is the Ogilvy (agency) article which is in similar condition, but is almost half the size with similar-ish length of history. There is really no need for article be so big. The people who write these articles know this, once it get to this size, it virtually impossible to break it up, but when I finish these two reviews I'm doing, I'm going to shrink it drastically.  scope_creep Talk  00:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it needs reorganization as much as it needs shrinking; sections that should logically belong together are separated. For example, why is "Influence" a subsection of "Organization", while "Recruiting" is separate? "Media coverage and publications about McKinsey" seems to be a junk drawer. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding my previous post, this looks encouraging.  I think that the current article is a bruised and abused mess from conflicting sources.   Earlier IMO it was done well by a a wiki-good declared editor.  Later I think that it was a product of people who wanted to make it a "hit piece" including overwhelmingly large section on local controversies, plus maybe 1 or 2 undeclared COI pro-company editors.  North8000 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The laudatory content is vague, the description of the controversies is disorganized, and the business history jams in details without any sense of why they might or might not be important. For example, Its revenues were 50, 20, and 30 percent from strategy, operations, and technology consulting, respectively. So what? How are those divisions even defined? Are they industry-standard terms, or are they divisions particular to McKinsey's? The "practice areas" are first defined as Strategy, Operations and Organization, and then manufacturing and business technology are added. Did "organization" consulting contribute no revenue? Was that 30% from "technology consulting" derived from the manufacturing tech or the business tech side? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it! North8000 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit
I have removed about 5k of it on a copyedit, which has been much puff, multiple references as many as five per line, obvious statements, peacock terms, unsupported claims, unstructured list with encyclopedic benefits and names drops with no benefits and an undue section/quote with no academic balance.  scope_creep Talk  09:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Too long lede
Several former employees of McKinsey have moved on to prominent roles in the private, public, and social sectors. Notable examples include CEOs of bulge bracket banks: James P. Gorman at Morgan Stanley, Tidjane Thiam at Credit Suisse and Jane Fraser at Citibank; business leaders in the high tech sector: Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet; and politicians such as: Pete Buttigieg, the current U.S. Secretary of Transportation and Bobby Jindal, the former Governor of Louisiana.

Vault.com rankings and COI tag (June 2022)
See WP:ANI — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm an uninvolved editor and saw it there. I've commented there that I think this is an overreaction, that rather than some nefarious coordinated UPI, what we probably have are some random, unccordinated keen current or soon-to-join employees proud of where they work/will work, just like students tend to be proud of unversities where they study. As to the substance, I gather it's an edit war about whether to include a statement that Vault ranks McKinsey very highly among consulting firms/places to work. I haven't looked it up, but am pretty sure this is correct, and if sourced properly think it should be included in the article, since (for better or worse) Vault rankings are important in hiring new consultants. Yes, the inclusion of this casts McKinsey in a positive light, but that does not mean it is promotional. Many years ago, I worked for some time for McKinsey. So one could call me slightly-COI in that I guess I have an interest in having prior employers appear in a positive light. But I don't think I'm COI enough to preclude me from being able to edit or discuss editing this article. Martinp (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Returning a day later to add: the Vault rankings to me seen worthwhile enough to add somewhere in the article (e.g. the Recruiting section, since Vault.com is primarily about ranking employers), but not important enough to have in the lede. Thoughts from others? And I'm going to remove the big COI tag at top of article since it's really overkill for a tempest in a teapot debate about whether one fact should or shouldn't be in the lede, while the template adds text making it sound like a major contributor to the article has a COI (and therefore the whole text is suspect?) I'm pretty sure this can be sorted pretty easily with a bit of talk page discussion. Martinp (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Returning again 5 days later. There have been no comments, so I have reinstated the Vault.com material, but rather than in the lede (given multiple comments in the revert war edit summaries that it is not important enough for the lede...) I have put it in the recruiting section (given my opinion, as uninvoled editor but endorsed by other edit summaries) that it is notable in terms of university recruiting. Note that while it does indeed put McKinsey in a positive light, that in itself does not mean it is promotional content. If people disagree, let's discuss here and reach a consensus rather than continuing the slo-mo edit war on this sentence of recent months. Martinp (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this because there is a piece of info that I don't know and in a quick look was unable to find out.  If vault is big/prominent regarding these types of ratings or if the vault rating is consistent with other similar ratings, then this is real information and good for the article.  If it fails one or both of those criteria, then it is likely bias-based cherry picking and then it is not informative and possibly misleading. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Vault is certainly prominent among consulting job applicants from universities (MBAs and undergraduate), though some would argue it preys on candidates' insecurities in selling them so-called "inside information" and "interview prep" materials of limited value. And I think there is a general understanding that McKinsey ranks either top or in the top-3 in strategic consulting firms. So I feel that this is a noncontroversial 3rd party source for a noncontroversial bit of information. Martinp (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

New book When McKinsey Comes to Town
I created a draft for Draft:When McKinsey Comes to Town. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION
— Assignment last updated by Kgl49! (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

what is the process of producing steel from pig iron 129.0.205.233 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-representative picture
The picture shows all of 3 WTC -- 80 floors. McKinsey and Company occupy only 5 floors, about 6% of the building ... but the picture implies the building is their entire office. I've changed the caption to draw attention to the partial occupancy, but should the image be used at all? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)